Once again we are supposed to believe that Michael Steele had a slip of the tongue. This time in an Interview with Gentleman's Quarterly magazine which included the following exchange:

"The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion," he said. "My mother chose life. So I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."

Interviewer Lisa DePaulo asked: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"

DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"

Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."

Twice before on this site (look under the topic GOP failure) I have discussed Steele's departure from the pro-life stance. Yet in a way not clearly in evidence before, this interview reveals the insidious character of the argument Steele represents. According to this argument, individual choices are not subject to interference by the Federal government. Rather you state the case for one side or the other, and let the individual decide. The problem is, of course, that matters of justice, of right and wrong, always involve individual choices. The choice to rob, lie, cheat and murder are all individual choices. The choice to rape, kidnap and enslave another is an individual choice. The choice to serve or not to serve someone in a restaurant, on account of their race, is an individual choice. Obviously the real issue is not whether individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. That's been clear since Eve made her fateful decision to eat the forbidden fruit. The issue is when and whether they have the right to choose as they do.

American liberty is founded on the premise that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. This premise is not a statement about human aspirations. It's a statement about right and wrong. An unalienable right can be transgressed by individuals and governments, but the premise of liberty forbids the assertion that those who transgress they have the right to do so. Right is not on the side of government when it commits or tolerates murder, theft and terror against the innocent. Individuals and laws that do so are inherently unjust, and powers used in this way are not lawful powers.

Steele consistently maintains that issues, like abortion, that involve respect for unalienable rights, are properly decided at the state rather than the Federal level. But the premise of liberty makes no such distinction. Respect for unalienable rights is required of human governments at any and all levels, because the just powers of all such governments are derived from the people's exercise of those rights. As the Federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the states, so the state governments only have the powers delegated to them by the people. But the "unalienable" aspect of each person's rights means that such rights cannot be given away, not under any circumstances. What the people cannot rightly give, the states cannot rightly claim.

But the premise of liberty includes the notion that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Though government cannot claim the power to transgress against unalienable rights, the foundational purpose of government entails the obligation to preserve and respect them. No government powers are just except those derived from the only source consistent with this obligation, which is the consent of the people. Clearly however, the idea of consent based on respect for unalienable rights does not mean that the people have the right to do whatever they please, since they cannot rightly do anything that alienates (contradicts or surrenders) their unalienable rights. In this sense, government of by and for the people, is limited government: not only limited by the terms of its constitution, but by the purpose and terms of its institution or establishment. Liberty therefore is not identical with a simply unlimited freedom to choose. Individuals are free to choose actions that violate unalienable right, but they cannot claim the right to do so.

When, in their individual or collective capacity, people choose to violate unalienable rights they transgress liberty. Since liberty is its essential characteristic, this transgression effectively abandons the republican form of government. When an individual commits this transgression, it is a criminal act. When a government commits this transgression, it is an unlawful government. Under our constitution the supervision of this transgression when committed by individuals, has been left to the states. But if and when a state or states neglect this supervision, the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, section 4) explicitly requires that the government of the United States guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. Like the guarantor of a loan, it must intervene to make good any deficiency in the states' respect for its requirements. Michael Steele's assertion that the states have the exclusive right to decide the issue of abortion is therefore incorrect. They should have the opportunity to decide it (which is one of the reasons the Roe v. Wade decision was prudentially wrong) but if they decide, by action or neglect, in favor of committing or allowing the violation of unalienable right, the Federal government has the Constitutional obligation to intervene. On abortion it may be sensible, after so many years of misplaced respect for the unlawful Roe v. Wade decision, to make this obligation clear to all the states by Federal legislation in some form. This could help to avoid miscalculations that might disrupt our civil peace. For this reason I think that such legislation, including a Constitutional amendment may be prudent. However, our reasoning here makes clear that it is not legally or Constitutionally necessary.

Finally, I think it's time we all stopped pretending that Steele's persistent advocacy of the "pro-choice" position is an accident, or a slip of the tongue. I believe these episodes are purposeful. His actions are meant to assert the fallacy that it is pro-life to be pro-choice. But this means accepting the position that at some level the choice to murder an innocent human being is consistent with respect for the unalienable right to life. Except we embrace the noxious position that right and wrong choices are equally just, this is not and can never be a pro-life view. Except we abandon the whole idea of unalienable right, this is not and can never be a view consistent with American liberty.

I think that Steele and the people he represents have gotten away with this disingenuous effort to warp, distract and mislead the pro-life movement for long enough. This issue is vital to the survival of America's free institutions. People of conscience deserve a frank and purposeful debate about it, not a sly attempt at argument by inadvertence. To that end I challenge Michael Steele to face me in such a debate, in a venue open to scrutiny by the general public. Though the courage to debate is not the test of truth, it may be a test of true conviction. I claim to be pro-life because I have stood that test, against Barack Obama, Alan Dershowitz and others. Why should pro-life people accept Steele's protestations of pro-life conviction if he refuses to do so?

What is particularly annoying to me is this isn’t even his job. He needs to raise money and rebuild party infrastructure. If he was just focusing on that, none of these retarded gaffes would be happening.

Keyes will be just flapping his lips. The GOP leadership knew what they were getting with Steele. If Keyes could validate his position by getting himself elected it would be more convincing but I fear the GOP is a lost cause now.

Yes, as Fred Thompson said, we should repeal Roe v. Wade and return the argument to the states. Absolutely. And then we can proceed from there.

But it’s still not right to kill innocent people. Nobody has a “right” to an abortion. That sends a vile message. None of the states permitted abortion legally until shortly before Roe v. Wade, as a result of a well-organized liberal campaign by the Rockefellers and other liberals.

And the country did a hell of a lot better before all that happened, with fewer divorces, fewer broken families, fewer perverted kids, even aside from the question of whether it’s right to murder babies.

Let states decide unalienable rights? That's crazy. This free republic is premised on the self-evident truth that government's purpose - all government - is the protection of the unalienable rights that come from God, not from man.

To alienate innocent human life is to show that you have no respect for any natural right of any man.

21
posted on 03/13/2009 1:49:16 PM PDT
by EternalVigilance
(Pro-choice for states is pro-choice. This destroys America...it's all Pluribus and no more Unum)

Steele is such an utter moron. I said he was an unreliable RINO, soft on guns, and sounded like a dumb jock when we were considering a new GOP head. I was called a racist. Now, unfortunately, I am being proven right on a weekly basis.

True. I cannot think of any exercise more useless than for the GOP and conservatives to continue to carp about themselves and each other. We lost in 2006. We lost in 2008. We are in the wilderness, folks. Grab a map and join the expedition to get out of the wilderness or shut up.

It should be up to the states as should most things.Really? Which other unalienable rights are you and Steele willing to "let states decide"?

Please tell us where abortion is listed as an "inalienable right"? Certainly not in the Constitution, nor by the Founders, nor by current US law. Five folk in robes foolishly found it as an emanation of a penumbra, but little more.

Secondly, the poster said "MOST things". They did not say ALL things.

Third, the Tenth Amendment is pretty clear. You might try reading it sometime.

The repubs elected him to this post. Let them smell his stinky ilk and move on with first getting rid of him and second electing a CONSERVATIVE that will move the party forward, not looking for reparation. Obama will take care of that.

He was the guest speaker at my brother’s high school graduation. I like listening to him but his oration doesn’t fit the modern sound-bite mentality of most Americans. Many people have such a short attention span they can’t follow an argument from premise to conclusion.

It’s probably why TV programs have gotten shorter as they cram more commercials into a programming hour. They even did away with many TV themes and they run promos during the closing credits. People have to be constantly entertained or they tune out. See the movie Idiocracy for an example of this.

Steele: “The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.”

You are right, according to our Constitution, it should be a state decision. But if you say that like Fred Thompson did, many aren't going to like it. This should have been Steeles first and only statement.

The Tenth Amendment in no way supports a “states’ rights trumps unalienable rights” argument. This isn’t possible, since the stated purpose of the Constitution is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY,” and because the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments protect all innocent persons from being killed. EVERYWHERE in America.

I don’t think you’re following the debate here.

47
posted on 03/13/2009 2:02:04 PM PDT
by EternalVigilance
(Pro-choice for states is pro-choice. This destroys America...it's all Pluribus and no more Unum)

Easy muffin, I told you that I think abortion is murder. There are at least a couple of issues here. The legal one should be fixed immediately, regardless of the gravity of the larger issue.

As for the larger issue - some states will allow it, and some won’t. For a change, you’ll be able to live in a state that doesn’t condone infanticide. I’d take that much at this point.

It doesn’t mean I’d stop there. My daughter is adopted. You ought not call people ignorant when you don’t know who they are. It’s your attitude that keeps more reasonable people separated on this particular issue.

Even most liberals believe its murder. Most of them I know admit to that position. Some righteous asshole calling them ignorant, however, is liable to stiffen their resolve just to piss you off.

Let the principle and logic of your position carry the message instead. It’s pretty powerful.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.